Drainage Snafu, NTC waste public money on uphill drainage Options

[NWNREADER]

I do agree that it does look a bit like moaning after the event, but I would have sought clarification first before posting the problem. I'm sure though, whichever way Simon had approached this, you both would have had an opinion about it 'prepared'. Had he said from the beginning, I would imagine there would be people say, 'don't poke your nose', or people would have asked how does he know that the drain would have been installed wrong, until it is installed.
Whyfor you say that? I have minimal interest in the running of the allotments per se, but the allocation of 'blame' for alleged incompetence is a big (useful) hammer for a citizen to wield. Problem is, the politicos are all too clever at batting it off or finding a way out. Being able to say 'I stole a peek at the plans and .....' rather seals the escape routes or gives the chance for a bit of interpersonal communication to point out the plans are back-to-front.


Only Simon has posted about this. This shows that no-one else is looking out for the site's welfare, even if Simon's motives are not altruistic.
I'm not doubting Simons intent, but his methodology can frustrate his desired outcome. If you want something done right you act differently to if you want to be able to demonstrate a failure. Comment on the failure can still be made, whatever it may be, but better than firing from the hip and (maybe?) having to retract

What it might expose, 'assuming the ground works are in error', is that there might be a body supervising such work that might be incompetent. The way things work in life this that most bodies don't change things until a problem becomes apparent.
I agree with that, but the supervisory problem could rest in a number of places, not just NTC......

[Andy Capp]

I agree, Simon's methods are not always the most efficient, but the essence of the thread is more important to me than the strategy. The only thing I would criticise Simon for is not appearing to seek clarification on the remedial work. I also stand by the idea that sometimes you have to let things happen so you have a better example to demonstrate with. Simon's view is that the public could do a better job, so paradoxically, you have to have problems to prove the point. If this drainaway was built correctly, then Simon would be proved wrong and might not have an argument.

To answer your question, I suspect there are people now who are prejudiced towards Simon Kirby, regardless of his methods or motives. I say this being conscious that he appears to have a vendetta against the council, but it seems one that is reciprocated. You can't have a tail wagging the dog, but I think the council could 'manage' him better.

Meanwhile; the Tories really don't like Joe Public sticking their nose in! http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=17455

[dannyboy]

As a result, councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

not my impression at all.

[Dodgys smarter b...]

Meanwhile; the Tories really don't like Joe Public sticking their nose in! http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=17455

"The seeds have been sewn for the idea of a community project, but have not yet borne fruit"

.....and for those of us with English as a first language?

[Andy Capp]

As a result, councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

not my impression at all.

You missed: "Meanwhile, Howard Bairstow (Con, Falkland) said he felt the idea was “fanciful” as he said it was likely to take up a lot of council officer time, particularly with the maintenance and nurturing of all the crops".

[NWNREADER]

You missed: "Meanwhile, Howard Bairstow (Con, Falkland) said he felt the idea was “fanciful” as he said it was likely to take up a lot of council officer time, particularly with the maintenance and nurturing of all the crops".

Was that comment Tory policy, or a single councillor expressing an opinion? Is he right? I don't know, but to do someone down by their party as opposed to the validity of what they say seems dogmatic.
The cost of the project would seem likely to be publicly funded (Council precept) so it makes sense in my book to ensure it is a practical idea for Newbury, not just a 'good idea' that may have worked elsewhere.


Talking about community projects....
Where is our water wheel?

[On the edge]

Talking about community projects....
Where is our water wheel?

Where were you!

[Andy Capp]

Was that comment Tory policy, or a single councillor expressing an opinion? Is he right? I don't know, but to do someone down by their party as opposed to the validity of what they say seems dogmatic.

dannyboy said he didn't get the impression at all (I think it is clear my sentence was rather flippant). Reading the passage, there is an attempt to portray this as a party issue. Libs seem in favour, the Tory(s) seem sceptical. Please don't shoot me for interpreting the piece as intended.

The cost of the project would seem likely to be publicly funded (Council precept) so it makes sense in my book to ensure it is a practical idea for Newbury, not just a 'good idea' that may have worked elsewhere.

Of course, but with phrases like 'fanciful' (councillors really should learn to chose their words better), I wonder how enthusiastic they are about it.

[blackdog]

How daft is it that people living in Falkland Garth are constituents of The Town, yet people living in Eeklo Place aren't?

? Eeklo Place is in the Pyle Hill Ward - its Newbury Town councillors are Arthur Johnson and Julian Swift-Hook.

Couldn't it be argued that The Town is broadly speaking all wards that fall within the mile of The Town?

You can argue many things - but Newbury Town Council is the representative body for the civil parish of Newbury, to locate their operations in another parish would be really bizarre. You would also find many residents of places like Speen, Donnington, Shaw, Cold Ash, Thatcham, Greenham, Hampstead Marshall, Enborne, Newtown etc getting upset if they found themselves 'moved' into Newbury.

Indeed, doesn't The Town benefit immensely from revenue from the Greenham Common Trust?

I'm sure it does as do many other places - I note, for instance, that NGT have their name on the new village hall in Beech Hill. I doubt that there would be many Beech Hill parish councillors wanting to have meetings at NGP.

[Andy Capp]

? Eeklo Place is in the Pyle Hill Ward - its Newbury Town councillors are Arthur Johnson and Julian Swift-Hook.

OK I tried to use an extreme example, but many people at the of of Greenham (for instance) are excluded from determining the governance of Newbury Town, yet people equally distanced, like in Essex Street, are included. Pyle Hill Ward is included, Greenham Hill, or whatever the ward there is called, is not.

You can argue many things - but Newbury Town Council is the representative body for the civil parish of Newbury, to locate their operations in another parish would be really bizarre.

Exactly why would it be bizarre? If it was more economical AND efficient to hold the meetings out of the town centre?

You would also find many residents of places like Speen, Donnington, Shaw, Cold Ash, Thatcham, Greenham, Hampstead Marshall, Enborne, Newtown etc getting upset if they found themselves 'moved' into Newbury.

Wards stay the same, don't they, it is only demarcation. People wouldn't be 'moved' to Newbury. Indeed, I know a few people who moved to Greenham, only to discover that they were classed as Thatcham! Which was costly due to a higher insurance premium.

My point is, as conurbations grow and become more populated, surely there should be restructuring. Especially as I would imagine people are more mobile these days. Newbury town is now only a matter of minutes travelling by car for may who live near Newbury, and probably make more journeys to the town than in the old days. I would say that if this is true, they should be entitled to a stake holding in its governance.

I'm sure it does as do many other places - I note, for instance, that NGT have their name on the new village hall in Beech Hill. I doubt that there would be many Beech Hill parish councillors wanting to have meetings at NGP.

They would not need to, but should consider it, if it meant cheaper and more efficient governance. Not so, if it didn't.

[Simon Kirby]

So you watched the drain being dug & didn't feel the need to point out the error? No wonder the 'big society' idea falls flat when people won't even give assistance to somthing they fell passionate about & would have benefited from.

If it had been me I would have tried to do something & ensure the darin was installed properly, not wait until it was finished & then gloat about it on a local forum.

In point of fact I didn't see the ditch being dug, it was dug in the day and I saw the result in the evening. A couple of years ago when the idea of additional ditches was first mooted I made the serious offer to my ward councillor to dig the ditches myself.

Ten years ago when the Council regime was benign I dug a 120' drainage ditch, 2' deep, 3' wide. It was possible because I'd also dug out 100' of the south ditch so that the water would drain away. Three years ago I dug out all of the north ditch, about 1000' of it - about 100 hours work over six weeks.

I have been up to the Council several times to ask for allotmenteers to be allowed to maintain the site and the suggestion has been dismissed out of hand without discussion - it's a matter of public record which you are welcome to verify. The rules, which previously obliged me as a tenant to keep the ditches clear, were changed specifically so we could not clear the ditches. As one tory councillor said: "where would we be if we allowed tenants to volunteer to maintain the sites?" Where indeed.

In all of this time not once has any single officer or councillor sought to talk to me about how I or the allotment society could help maintain the sites or save the tax-payer money on the administration. As a minimum I would have expected at least one of my ward councillors to want to discuss the possibility with me.

The Big Society has failed in Newbury because Newbury Town Council don't want it to succeed. Like I said, there's an easy £300k of business to be lost if the Big Society isn't pwned, and the Council are not asleep on watch.

[Simon Kirby]

You can argue many things - but Newbury Town Council is the representative body for the civil parish of Newbury, to locate their operations in another parish would be really bizarre. You would also find many residents of places like Speen, Donnington, Shaw, Cold Ash, Thatcham, Greenham, Hampstead Marshall, Enborne, Newtown etc getting upset if they found themselves 'moved' into Newbury.

Fine, whatever, let them take an office in the Greenham or Wash Common community centres or whatever. I think you're mising the point.

[Andy Capp]

In point of fact I didn't see the ditch being dug, it was dug in the day and I saw the result in the evening. A couple of years ago when the idea of additional ditches was first mooted I made the serious offer to my ward councillor to dig the ditches myself...

...I have been up to the Council several times to ask for allotmenteers to be allowed to maintain the site and the suggestion has been dismissed out of hand without discussion - it's a matter of public record which you are welcome to verify. The rules, which previously obliged me as a tenant to keep the ditches clear, were changed specifically so we could not clear the ditches. As one tory councillor said: "where would we be if we allowed tenants to volunteer to maintain the sites?" Where indeed...

Perhaps NWNREADER might take a leaf out of his own book and seek the facts before making comment. On the face of it, I think you have addressed the points raised by Tory1, dannyboy, and Tory2, NWNREADER.

...but if you are lying...I'll be back!

[dannyboy]

dannyboy said he didn't get the impression at all (I think it is clear my sentence was rather flippant). Reading the passage, there is an attempt to portray this as a party issue. Libs seem in favour, the Tory(s) seem sceptical. Please don't shoot me for interpreting the piece as intended.


Of course, but with phrases like 'fanciful' (councillors really should learn to chose their words better), I wonder how enthusiastic they are about it.

who cares what one councillor thinks? It was decided in the end that As a result, [the] councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

[Andy Capp]

who cares what one councillor thinks? It was decided in the end that As a result, [the] councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

I have already explained my comment was tonguing in cheek, but I was just challenging your 'at all' statement. Why so sensitive to anti-Tory rhetoric?

[NWNREADER]

Perhaps NWNREADER might take a leaf out of his own book and seek the facts before making comment. On the face of it, I think you have addressed the points raised by Tory1, dannyboy, and Tory2, NWNREADER.

...but if you are lying...I'll be back!

In my defence, M'Lud, the comment by Daniel was made a couple of days before I added mine. I fell into the trap of no response meaning the interpretation was not wide of the mark..... Simon is usually regular updating items he has an interest in.
I withdraw, gladly.

Tory? Me? No party afiliation whatsoever. Just seek decent info, clearly set out. Richard Heads come in all shapes and sizes.......

I would still like for Simon to confirm he has raised the issue with the Council so that a proper response may be forthcoming... I trust there is not a pump midway along the drain..... Pass another straw, this one is bending......

[NWNREADER]

In point of fact I didn't see the ditch being dug, it was dug in the day and I saw the result in the evening. A couple of years ago when the idea of additional ditches was first mooted I made the serious offer to my ward councillor to dig the ditches myself.

Ten years ago when the Council regime was benign I dug a 120' drainage ditch, 2' deep, 3' wide. It was possible because I'd also dug out 100' of the south ditch so that the water would drain away. Three years ago I dug out all of the north ditch, about 1000' of it - about 100 hours work over six weeks.

I have been up to the Council several times to ask for allotmenteers to be allowed to maintain the site and the suggestion has been dismissed out of hand without discussion - it's a matter of public record which you are welcome to verify. The rules, which previously obliged me as a tenant to keep the ditches clear, were changed specifically so we could not clear the ditches. As one tory councillor said: "where would we be if we allowed tenants to volunteer to maintain the sites?" Where indeed.

In all of this time not once has any single officer or councillor sought to talk to me about how I or the allotment society could help maintain the sites or save the tax-payer money on the administration. As a minimum I would have expected at least one of my ward councillors to want to discuss the possibility with me.

The Big Society has failed in Newbury because Newbury Town Council don't want it to succeed. Like I said, there's an easy £300k of business to be lost if the Big Society isn't pwned, and the Council are not asleep on watch.

"If it tales one man 100 hours to dig 1000' of ditch, how long would it take a whole Council?" Show your working-out in the margin.

[Simon Kirby]

I would still like for Simon to confirm he has raised the issue with the Council so that a proper response may be forthcoming... I trust there is not a pump midway along the drain..... Pass another straw, this one is bending......

No, there's no pump mid-way or anything, the drain was simply dug a spit deep, and as the ground rises on the way to the ditch so too does the drain. And the Council read this forum well enough, so unless they fear accountability they can come on here and say how much this particular snafu cost.

As I said, I'm more than happy to show anyone around the allotments, and of course I'll post the picture in the winter when the allotment is again flooded.

[blackdog]

Wards stay the same, don't they, it is only demarcation. People wouldn't be 'moved' to Newbury. Indeed, I know a few people who moved to Greenham, only to discover that they were classed as Thatcham! Which was costly due to a higher insurance premium.

Wards change all the time - boundaries move, houses are built, etc. The insurance issue is irrelevant, it simply has nothing to do with ward or civil parish boundaries. Insurance companies use postcodes when calculating risk - not local govenment boundaries. The Post Office controls postcode area boundaries - based on the efficient (?) operation of their mail delivery system, they would not change just because a town boundary changed. Parts of Greenham are in RG14, parts are in RG18 so even within Greenham the insurance rates will vary. They will, however, pay less council tax than Newbury residents.

My point is, as conurbations grow and become more populated, surely there should be restructuring. Especially as I would imagine people are more mobile these days. Newbury town is now only a matter of minutes travelling by car for may who live near Newbury, and probably make more journeys to the town than in the old days. I would say that if this is true, they should be entitled to a stake holding in its governance.

Newbury (originally the borough, since 1974 the civil parish) boundaries have extended over the years to encompass large chunks of Speen, Greenham, Thatcham, Cold Ash, & Enborne - I'm sure the boundaries will be extended again in the future. At that time there will be plenty of objectors (not wanting to be 'moved' into Newbury) as well as supporters of the change. Until it happens Newbury Town Council will be elected by the residents of the current civil parish. The residents of the adjoining parishes elect their own parish councils.

In reality the town council has very little to do with the governance of Newbury - WBC has far, far more control - so all voters in West Berkshire have a chance to influence things in Newbury. Of course residents in Pangbourne and Streatley rarely ever visit Newbury - but have far more say in its development than the residents of Newtown, Highclere, etc for whom Newbury is their local town

I, personally, think that Newbury residents should have more say in the development of the town - for which reason I would like to see a far more powerful town council with real power in planning decisions and town development projects, all of which are imposed on the town these days by the functionaries at WBC.

They would not need to, but should consider it, if it meant cheaper and more efficient governance. Not so, if it didn't.

NTC's biggest problem is the Town Hall - NRDC/WBC were happy enough to give it to them as it is in economic terms a white elephant. The site is a good one, but the building is all but useless for any modern commercial use. That said it is listed and even Patrick Griffin hasn't yet come up with a plan for a replacement. I suppose they might be able to sell it for conversion to another Wetherspoons and move to an office somewhere in town and save a considerable sum.

[On the edge]

Wards change all the time - boundaries move, houses are built, etc. The insurance issue is irrelevant, it simply has nothing to do with ward or civil parish boundaries. Insurance companies use postcodes when calculating risk - not local govenment boundaries. The Post Office controls postcode area boundaries - based on the efficient (?) operation of their mail delivery system, they would not change just because a town boundary changed. Parts of Greenham are in RG14, parts are in RG18 so even within Greenham the insurance rates will vary. They will, however, pay less council tax than Newbury residents.


Newbury (originally the borough, since 1974 the civil parish) boundaries have extended over the years to encompass large chunks of Speen, Greenham, Thatcham, Cold Ash, & Enborne - I'm sure the boundaries will be extended again in the future. At that time there will be plenty of objectors (not wanting to be 'moved' into Newbury) as well as supporters of the change. Until it happens Newbury Town Council will be elected by the residents of the current civil parish. The residents of the adjoining parishes elect their own parish councils.

In reality the town council has very little to do with the governance of Newbury - WBC has far, far more control - so all voters in West Berkshire have a chance to influence things in Newbury. Of course residents in Pangbourne and Streatley rarely ever visit Newbury - but have far more say in its development than the residents of Newtown, Highclere, etc for whom Newbury is their local town

I, personally, think that Newbury residents should have more say in the development of the town - for which reason I would like to see a far more powerful town council with real power in planning decisions and town development projects, all of which are imposed on the town these days by the functionaries at WBC.


NTC's biggest problem is the Town Hall - NRDC/WBC were happy enough to give it to them as it is in economic terms a white elephant. The site is a good one, but the building is all but useless for any modern commercial use. That said it is listed and even Patrick Griffin hasn't yet come up with a plan for a replacement. I suppose they might be able to sell it for conversion to another Wetherspoons and move to an office somewhere in town and save a considerable sum.

Think this suggests we have far too much 'government' in Newbury! We are supposed to have a unitary authority which was supposed to have eliminated the petty squabbling and empire building so beloved of little Councils. It's high time we eliminated the urban parish councils and treated Newbury as the Town it has become. Lets face it, Greenham, Speen, Shaw *** Donnington are simply suburbs of Newbury - not separate habitations.